The problem I see with this company is that they have a progressive image as an anti-sweatshop clothing manufacturer, yet they employ the most sexist ads I've seen in a long time.

You can read their mission statement here.

On their website they even boast of their "provocative" ads, which feature young women (and a few men) who look very young (adolescent-looking, but probably older in reality) and are very naked.

You can view their proud page of ads here.

What I'd like to do is start thinking about what we can do about them. Perhaps just start with some letter/e-mail writing?

I've written to magazines that carry their ads and I've written to them. I never received a reply.

It sucks when companies use sexist images to promote their products, but it sucks even more when a "progressive" company does this.

Any ideas?

PS. If you can't help but write them right away once you see the ads, the press contact is Ilda Geyik, Customer Service/Reception. Tel. (514) 939-0245 Ext. 234 Fax. (514) 221-2328
[email protected]

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Babbling_Jenn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling_Jenn:

The problem I see with this company is that they have a progressive image as an anti-sweatshop clothing manufacturer, yet they employ the most sexist ads I've seen in a long time.

---

Truly, the only way to fix them is get rid of said CEO Don Charney. Keep on writing letters of protest to all those cool pubs who run their ads, as well as websites (one of their largest campaigns). Write letters to the editor of those publications, not just letters of protest. Write articles to well-read progressive magazines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling_Jenn:
Hmm...where can one find such stickers?

---

quote:

---

They used to have them at Northern Sun, but I don't see 'em anymore.

---

The ads are extremely nasty - full of "exotic" stereotypes about hot young Latinas / Latinos as well. They are most objectionable.

quote:

---

Hmm...where can one find such stickers?

---

quote:

---

The ads are extremely nasty - full of "exotic" stereotypes about hot young Latinas / Latinos as well.

---

This point struck me as strange until I looked at the images linked in an earlier post. I was surprised that not only do the images employ "exotic" stereotypes, but the texts employ them too. Many of the images were unfamiliar to me - the company advertises heavily in Toronto, but I've never seen the more vivid images before now.

I do know that in the past the company has been accused of peddling images that could be construed as softcore kiddie porn.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: F. ]

I personally am not offended by these ads, and I would honestly appreciate it if someone could illustrate how they are sexist, without bringing up the fact that people are almost nude, or that they look young. These arguments seem naive - it's fashion advertising. I don't believe they look like kiddie porn; they look like amateur porn. They look like the kind of pictures you take with your boyfriend or girlfriend with your crappy camera, and hide in your underwear drawer and burn after the break up.

exploitation and harassment

quote:

---

Originally posted by F.:
I was surprised that not only do the images employ "exotic" stereotypes, but the texts employ them too.

---

quote:

---

Meet Nour Alsholi. Palestinian. Israeli. Canadian.

An emplopyee of American Apparel's Toronto store, Nour is going to help us open up retail locations in the middle east.

---

quote:

---

Hailing from Monolova, Mexico, Ed discovered American Apparel when he was studying graphic design in London.
. . .
The multi-talented Ed has truly become a key player in the launching of our first store in Latin America.

---

quote:

---

Meet Shannon.

Of Chinese and Croatian descent, Shannon hails from Windsor, Canada. A mobile employee, she has helped open and develop American Apparel stores across the continent. Aside from traveling she says that her favorite part of the job is the camraderie she has with other women in the company. Shot here by one of those fellow female employees in Montreal.

---

quote:

---

Meet Nicole.

She is the 30-year old co-creator of SweetAction Magazine, a porn mag for the ladies, by the ladies - think skinny, naked hipster boys with hard-ons (available at selected American Apparel stories.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by reuben:
I don't mean to discount your activism in any way, babbling_jenn, but it seems as though Dov Charney should or could be hiring people to start these letter writing and e-mail campaigns. These movements are his biggest form of publicity. This was going around in livejournal and myspace about a year ago, I believe, and what better way to get people to talk about American Apparel, to tell their friends about it, and to click on a link to their provocative ads?

I personally am not offended by these ads, and I would honestly appreciate it if someone could illustrate how they are sexist, without bringing up the fact that people are almost nude, or that they look young. These arguments seem naive - it's fashion advertising. I don't believe they look like kiddie porn; they look like amateur porn. They look like the kind of pictures you take with your boyfriend or girlfriend with your crappy camera, and hide in your underwear drawer and burn after the break up.

I don't buy new clothing, so I don't support American Apparel financially, but their ads are some of the least objectionable fashion ads I can think of.

---

Not babbling-jen, but, these type of campaigns often result in positive action. For example, an outlet for AA opened here in Boulder a few months ago. By informing various groups of their problems, the store has been boycotted, has very few customers, and will (hopefully) have to be closed.

As to the sexism inherent in the photos. Firstly, I'd argue that most fashion photography is sexist and objectifying. AA is particularly bad because of their focus a) on body parts rather than a whole person, c)their amature rape porn aesthetic (no smiles, red eyes, dark circles under the eyes and c) their often frightining tag lines. For example, during Christmas, one ran with their typical kiddie porn pictures, having the caption "Stuff This" and smaller print extolling stocking stuffers. If ya don't think that's sexist, you're out of your head.

Here's another ad:
"Meet Melissa," reads one print ad, which pictures a comely brunette in a shower and a see-through shirt. "She won an unofficial wet T-shirt contest held at the American Apparel apartment in Montreal." (The company maintains a string of apartments in the U.S. and Canada to save money on hotel rooms.)" from
AA

Charney himself is part of my objection to the company.
Another quote from the article above: ". Another says he asked her to hire young women with whom he could have sex, Asians preferred. All describe him using foul language in their presence, much of it demeaning to women. "

While it may bring AA publicity, I don't think that should be a reason not to boycott and write letters. I think that the only good publicity could do would be to get AA's name out in the open, more people being aware of it. However, if it is a well-known name associated with a well-known protest, it might work out.

For example, to those who are of the activist scene, to be caught in GAP is a major no-no. Since AA is an activist brand, since it advertises being sweatshop free, you can discourage it's largest market from purchasing their clothes.

I think that this material is sexist, more so than average fashion ads because of the dark images, the crotch shots, the idea that it is
amateur porn coming from the workers themselves. There are better ways to sell t-shirts than having an employee participate in a wet t-shirt contest.

quote:

---

I'm really not getting the supposedly nasty "exotic" or sexist stereotypes from these ads.

---

Neither am I, at least not the "exotic" cultural steroetypes. The ads just seem like straightforward bio to me.

Perhaps one of the anti-AA people here could show us an example of what they consider to be objectionable cultural stereotyping?

(edited to remove a misplaced "perhaps")

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I find these adds extremely sexist. The reason is thus - these girls (they are not women) are presented to the male viewer as girls next door, wearing their bobby socks or boy shorts, while looking innocent and child like. Just because it is not airbrushed porn does not make it any less sexist. These 'models' are used to make men think they can have access to these young 'normal' girls, who are used in the ads to play up their underage looks (and perhaps status). There is nothing 'innocent' about these ads. They are there for one purpose it seems, and that purpose is to show men that little girls are sexual, especially ones with lollipops, bobby socks and boy shorts. The models are very young. It is disturbing. It is not right but it appears as long as guys don't find it sexist, well hey, then I guess it isn't right? Unless there is something about sexualizing children no one finds objectionable? Barley Legal is next to be judge non-sexist? What a crook!

---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use of the word "sexist"? Are there not an almost equal number of ads featuring men wearing nothing but their undies, displaying their nipples, spreading their legs, showing their butts etc etc...? These men are being presented to the female viewer as the boys next door - they're wearing hoodies like all the boys in my neighbourhood! It seems as though sexuality is being exploited in these ads, but it is not solely female sexuality, so I wouldn't call them sexist.

To me, none of these models look like children. Some of them have hairy chests and/or armpits. Some are sweating profusely. They are young adults, many of whom work in these stores. Children don't have hair, don't sweat like adults, and don't have jobs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reuben:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use of the word "sexist"? Are there not an almost equal number of ads featuring men wearing nothing but their undies, displaying their nipples, spreading their legs, showing their butts etc etc...?

---

Yup, you're misunderstanding the use of the word "sexist". No biggie. Sexism is not about "a gender is stereotyped and overtly sexualized". It's about a power system in which one gender dominates another, ie the male supremacist culture that we live in here in Canada and the US (and elsewhere of course). This doesn't mean the AA ads with men aren't problematic, or objectifying, or child-like, or exploitative, but they aren't sexist.

quote:

---

How about those ads for body spray, that show women turning into shrieking rampaging beasts at a mere whiff sprayed onto a teenage boy? They're on TV every five minutes and get way more exposure than American Apparel.

---

reuben, you make a very good point here. I agree with you. I think as progressives we're more let down and pissed off by companies such as AA, who we first think are okay, then they turn out not to be (The Body Shop is another example) versus companies that never indicated any interest or commitment to any progressive notions. This doesn't mean that AA's ads are the worst.

ed: cross posted with swirrlygirl!

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

quote:

---

Perhaps one of the anti-AA people here could show us an example of what they consider to be objectionable cultural stereotyping?

---

It's not so much stereotyping as it is conflating ethnicity with the perceived sexual availability of the women featured in the advertisments - the ethnicity of the person in question comes to mean little more than the wet t-shirt, the glazed porn eyes or the pout; it exists only to excite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal: Sexism is not about "a gender is stereotyped and overtly sexualized". It's about a power system in which one gender dominates another, ie the male supremacist culture that we live in here in Canada and the US (and elsewhere of course). This doesn't mean the AA ads with men aren't problematic, or objectifying, or child-like, or exploitative, but they aren't sexist.

---

That said, the particular criticisms I keep reading of these ads completely baffle me.

Those girls do not look underage. Anyone who thinks they do needs to take a walk past a high school and see what actual kids actually look like.

I don't see how anyone is depicted as appearing innocent or childlike. They just look like some people in their underwear, posing kinda sexy. There's nothing terribly exotic about any of it - the lo-fi, unretouched aesthetic screams amateur porn to some people, but seriously it's just amateur photography. They look like people. They ARE people. There's some fair-to-serious bending of established beauty standards going on in these ads. Nothing revolutionary, but worth noting.

No-one looks like they're about to get raped or abused. I don't think everyone has to sport a big, cheesy grin to justify appearing in a sexual context. There are so many conflicting complaints going on, too - unsmiling faces apparently are intended to depict reluctant sexual participants, but there's also the complaint of "glazed porn eyes" (that's an unfair term - you don't have to be in porn for your eyes to get all dilated and glazed from arousal) which would suggest the opposite.

Is the complaint that the women in these ads look like they DO or DO NOT wish to have sex? How about the men in these ads? Do the users charging the ads with sexism find that the men and women depicted are held to differing standards?

This whole thing is just weird to me. The ads are kind of good IN SPITE of how rotten the company is.

---

PS this other thing isn't a feminist issue except inasmuch as sweatshops employ women disproportionately, but The GAP has really turned themselves around to become industry leaders in human rights for garment workers and I think that activists who believe in voting with their dollars should reward them for it, rather than continuing to boycott them for past sins. After all, with no carrot these businesses have no incentive to shape up.

quote:

---

Those girls do not look underage. Anyone who thinks they do needs to take a walk past a high school and see what actual kids actually look like.

---

This is hilarious. Perhaps you need to be the one to walk past any high school. Pretty sure I know what 'actual' kids look like.

quote:

---

But thanks for telling me I have no idea what is sexist and what isn't. And of course, you do and you're here to set us straight on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesse Dignity:
There's some fair-to-serious bending of established beauty standards going on in these ads. Nothing revolutionary, but worth noting.

---

Really? Where?

As for underage, though, I agree with you. I also don't think they look underage, at least not the page full of ads that I saw. And I don't really have a problem with provocative poses either, when men or women do them. I mean, they're selling underwear and baby tees and short-shorts. Lots of people want to look sexy in those types of clothes.

But I really don't see them bending any beauty standards here. I doubt you could weigh more than 130 lbs and be in an American Apparel ad. (In fact, I'm betting you can't weigh a lot more than that and fit into their clothes, period, from the sizing charts I've seen.) And I didn't see any faces on that page (except maybe Charney's) that didn't look like the beauty standard, even if a lot of them WERE make-up free.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The scary part for me, is that I seem to be wrong.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

But I really don't see them bending any beauty standards here. I doubt you could weigh more than 130 lbs and be in an American Apparel ad. (In fact, I'm betting you can't weigh a lot more than that and fit into their clothes, period, from the sizing charts I've seen.) And I didn't see any faces on that page (except maybe Charney's) that didn't look like the beauty standard, even if a lot of them WERE make-up free.

---

Not only that, but there's the clothes themselves. I went into an American Apparel store a few months ago to see what the fuss was about, and all I saw were a bunch of coloured cotton T-shirts. And socks. I felt like it was some kind of elaborate joke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
I went into an American Apparel store a few months ago to see what the fuss was about, and all I saw were a bunch of coloured cotton T-shirts. And socks.

---

I've never been inside, but my dog has.

"Masturbation in front of women is underrated,' Dov explains to me later over the phone. 'It's much easier on the woman. She gets to watch, it's a sensual experience that doesn't involve a man violating a woman, yet once the man has his release, it's over and you can talk to the guy.'"

Ok. So let's forget for a moment that many people find the ads creepy and exploitative and hypersexualized.

Let's forget the sexual harassment lawsuits and other sexist behavior displayed by the CEO.

So you who stand up for AA and Charney really want to give your money to a guy who says the above? Really, think about it. A person can't speak to a male until he's had his "release". C'mon all you "men are exploited" folk. She GETS to watch. Oh thank you so very much. Because my pleasure depends being able to see the sacred sperm fountain....

quote:

---

From fourteen rivers'link:
"Masturbation in front of women is underrated,' Dov explains to me later over the phone. 'It's much easier on the woman. She gets to watch, it's a sensual experience that doesn't involve a man violating a woman, yet once the man has his release, it's over and you can talk to the guy.'"

Ok. So let's forget for a moment that many people find the ads creepy and exploitative and hypersexualized.

Let's forget the sexual harassment lawsuits and other sexist behavior displayed by the CEO.

So you who stand up for AA and Charney really want to give your money to a guy who says the above? Really, think about it. A person can't speak to a male until he's had his "release". C'mon all you "men are exploited" folk. She GETS to watch. Oh thank you so very much. Because my pleasure depends being able to see the sacred sperm fountain....

Guys. Defending this dirtbag is just silly.

---

If that's the same link that I read a few weeks ago, he asked the reporter's permission to masturbate in front of her, before doing so. And at the end of the article, the reporter indicated that she enjoyed hanging out with Charney, and would like to continue hanging out with him.

quote:

---

Just try to imagine an employee, male or female, who tried to indulge in such behaviour. He or she would be sacked within seconds, unless someone stepped in to say the employee was obviously deranged, and deserved sick leave while seeking care.

---

Well yes, if the employee did it in the office or the factory, in front of fellow empoyees who basically have no choice but to be there, then it would constitute indecent exposure and sexual harassment.

But the reporter wasn't Charney's employee or his co-worker, they weren't in a public place, and she had the choice to stay or not stay. I don't see how it constitutes bullying.

Look, let's say the reporter had written this:

"After the interview, I took Charney up on his invitiation to dinner at the classiest French eatery in Manhattan, followed by a romantic night at the Four Seasons executive suite".

I doubt anyone would be on here expressing disgust at Charney's behavior, even though the activities at the Four Seasons might very well have included exhibisionistic masturbation.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:

If that's the same link that I read a few weeks ago, he asked the reporter's permission to masturbate in front of her, before doing so. And at the end of the article, the reporter indicated that she enjoyed hanging out with Charney, and would like to continue hanging out with him.

So, is the reporter a "dirtbag" as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
To be frank, a lot of people come here and do that. We were just told in fact, only males can be sexist a few statements above

---

Ah, Bacchus, Bacchus, Bacchus.... Please read the text I wrote, not what you desired to be there. I outlined whether the men in the ads were victims of sexist oppression and answered in the negative.

As for the "are the women infantilized or not?" argument, whether or not we agree on the age or ages portrayed by the women doesn't make the ads more sexist, just with an added (or deleted) grossness factor.

And I wouldn't touch the masturbation portion of the argument with a.....

I too wont touch the masturbation part at all. Its a little creepy for me but it was consensual so I dont really care

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

Looking for ethical clothing is a pretty difficult task. There are so many factors to consider and most companies really don't give a shit.

It seems to be a trend that companies will talk about how great they are ethically, but I still don't trust them. Especially if they have a bad record. But that's a whole other discussion to have on a different forum.

My main issue is that with American Apparel we have a clothing manufacturer that has by most accounts ethical practices in production.

Good?

No.

I still can't justify buying their clothing because of the way women are used to market their clothing.

Whether you think they are infantilized or not, whether you think the women are being exploited or not, I personally am offended that I am being told to buy AA because Melissa participates in a wet t-shirt contest in a seedy apartment in Montreal.

Normally, these ads would be the status quo for me. Normally I would look at these ads like I do any others -- as sexist shit.

And just because the women models consent and enjoy the ads doesn't make them less sexist, remember.

My problem with all of this is that it's a "progressive" company going out of its way to be offensive and to provoke feminists.

To make this post even longer, I should elaborate on the taking-back of female sexuality. I admit I love porn, I love sexy pictures and sexy people. BUT there are ways of depicting sexuality without reinforcing the same-old images of women posing to get men off and to use their bodies to sell clothing.

There are better ways to go about doing this. I don't think this had a progressive motive and from a "progressive" company, I think this is crap.

At this point, I'm still looking for that ideal company.

However, I do want to say that I never have liked the company (though I may appear to defend it). The main rub for me has always been that there seems to be this ugly jingoistic vibe: it's American Apparel, everything is publicised as being "Made in the U.S.A.", etc.